Ladies And Gentlemen I Give You The President Of The United States

Don again cites the US code version which would not be applicable here. Treason in Constitution as it applies to elected officials has a different meaning. Subverting an election by conspiring with a foreign government or extorting a foreign government would certainly be within the meaning for Treason under the Constitution.

Don Diego keeps making this argument despite being told at least twice before the U.S. Code does not apply. I can only conclude Don Diego likes to spread disinformation because it arouses him in some manner. 

DonDiego does correctly cite Article Three of the Constitution. However:

DonDiego is a Trumper, albeit far more civil than most of our other resident Trumper scum. Being a Trumper, though, he feels compelled to ignore facts in order to support his hero. This includes the fact that treason as defined in the Constitution prohibits Trump's collusion with Russia in interfering with the US election. As doing so certainly established Russia as an enemy nation (though not technically at war with the US, said interference, past and ongoing, is certainly an act of war), Trump's cooperation with them ("aid and comfort") is treasonous.

His bribery/extortion regarding Ukraine is/was not treasonous. It is, however, an impeachable offense. Stuffing $450 million in taxpayer money in a suitcase and then hitting Ukraine over the head with it is certainly a high crime--extortion, bribery, and grand theft, to start. But technically treason? No.

I was more interested, though, in whether DonDiego thinks Trump's collusion with Russia was treason, regardless of any legal definition. I trust that he's intellectually honest enough, and not too much of a Trumper, to refrain from snorting "NO COLLUSION!"

 Article Three applies to citizens and not the President. We know this because it specifies in open court. The president wouldn't be tried in open court. He would be tried in the senate. Article 3 doesn't apply to him. 

Although, if you want to go with this interpretation, subverting an election would be levying war against the United States as you are trying to overthrow the legitimate government. You are just going about it using bribery and extortion instead of taking up arms. 

I would impeach the guy for things that aren't technically illegal: being an asshole, being incompetent, being lazy, not bothering to read or to learn anything about his job or the US government, appointing terrible people to important posts, and cheating at golf.

There are also his crimes that aren't impeachable as such, like fraud, theft, tax evasion, and lying under oath, that add up to an impeachable pattern of behavior.

Then there's the directly impeachable stuff, like his Russia and Ukraine crimes.

So I don't care so much about the legal interpretations involved as I care that he's an incompetent jerkwad who never should have been remotely considered for the office by the electorate. That tens of millions of people voted for him despite his manifest unfitness for office is a powerful argument for not letting every single cud-chewing yahoo vote. You should have to pass a simple citizenship test before you do. Most Trumpers would fail such a test.

Kevin Lewis inquires:

"I was more interested, though, in whether DonDiego thinks Trump's collusion with Russia was treason, regardless of any legal definition. I trust that he's intellectually honest enough, and not too much of a Trumper, to refrain from snorting 'NO COLLUSION!' "

On collusion:

From the American Bar Association :

"The special counsel found that Russia did interfere with the election, but 'did not find that the Trump campaign, or anyone associated with it, conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in these efforts, despite multiple efforts from Russian-affiliated individuals to assist the Trump campaign.' ”

DonDiego notes a difficulty in answering Kevin Lewis's question.  He asks if " . . . Trump's  act of collusion with Russia is treason, regardless of any legal definition." [italics added - DD]

From Alice in Wonderland:

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.” “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.” “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master—that’s all.”

Poor old DonDiego does not reside in Wonderland.

Whether one is guilty or innocent of a crime depends upon the "legal definition" of that crime.

 The US Constitution reads:

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court."

DonDiego opines that President Trump did not commit treason.

n.b. Poor old DonDiego thanks Kevin Lewis for presuming DonDiego would not snort. 

Treason, using a non-legal definition, is betraying one's country. Did Trump do that? Obviously, he did. And yes, even if Trump didn't commit treason according to the legal definition, he did betray and is betraying the United States. But he did "provide aid and comfort" to an "enemy" of the US, so the legal definition holds.

Insofar as whether or not Trump colluded with the Russians, the decision/opinion/finding that DonDiego quotes says specifically that the special counsel "did not find that..." That is MUCH different from "found that they/he did not..." It's a perhaps subtle distinction that eludes many Trumpers, and even Trump himself, but it's absolutely critical. As in:

1. I didn't find any gold, versus

2. I found that there wasn't any gold.

The investigation was compromised by Trump's repeated, and partially successful, attempts to block it. That is actually why I'm convinced Trump is guilty, and I would only ask DonDiego and Trumpers in general this:

Does an innocent man commit eight felonies (obstruction of justice) in an attempt to conceal evidence of a crime of which he is suspected? Because that's what Trump did, and the Mueller investigation found unequivocal evidence of that.

Kevin Lewis writes: "Insofar as whether or not Trump colluded with the Russians, the decision/opinion/finding that DonDiego quotes says specifically that the special counsel 'did not find that...' That is MUCH different from 'found that they/he did not...' It's a perhaps subtle distinction that eludes many Trumpers, and even Trump himself, but it's absolutely critical."

Goodness me !

The distinction which Kevin Lewis identifies is not subtle at all.  In fact it is the basis for all jurisprudence within the United States of America:

Presumption of Innocence: One of the most sacred principles in the American criminal justice system, holding that a defendant is innocent until proven guilty. In other words, the prosecution must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, each essential element of the crime charged. 

The presumption of innocence applies to everyone from the lowliest hayseed to, f'rinstance, The President of the United States, . . . and even Kevin Lewis and poor old DonDiego.

One doesn't get a presumption of innocence unless they are a defendant in a criminal trial. By all means, if you desire Trump to get his presumption of innocence, remove him from office, have him arrested for his crimes and then he will get his presumption of innocence until such time a jury renders its verdict. 

If someone reports you to the police for committing a felony offense, you don't get a presumption of innocence.  They begin building their case against you. Furthermore, in a civil trial, you don't get a presumption of innocence because you are not facing criminal punishment. Trump isn't on trial. He is under investigation for misconduct while in office.  When he is put on trial in the Senate the only thing that will be at stake is losing his job, so even at that stage, there is no presumption of innocence.

This is just another case of Don Diego and Republicans wanting to make a special rule to favor Trump.  They want him to have all of the benefits of a defendant at a criminal trial but none of the obligations. If a defendant or even third-party in a criminal or civil trial refused to comply with Subpoenas and tampered with witnesses ordering that they not appear and provide truthful testimony they would be arrested. 

Today, we learned the White House altered the official call transcript to exclude Trump talking about the Bidens.  I don't blame Don and the Cons wanting to make special rules for Trump.  Given the mounting evidence, it is the only way he can still claim innocence in the matter. Republicans in the Senate don't want to have to defend Trump's misconduct.  After seeing the evidence, they know that he doesn't a substantive defense to the allegations. I suspect at some point they will ask him to resign. I suspect Trump will refuse. 

Given that Trump is refusing to participate in the process, it will leave him with an inability to produce witnesses and evidence in his defense. For example, it is clear he doesn't want to introduce the full transcript into evidence as it would further implicate him. It is also clear he doesn't want any witnesses that have knowledge of his Ukraine policy to testify.  Leaving the question of who is he going to call as witnesses in his defense?  All in all, it doesn't sound like he is going to be able to present much of a defense. 

DonDiego (civilly) and our other Trumpers (nastily) still seem to not understand that Trump is not on trial at this stage. Therefore, talk about calling witnesses "in his defense" is specious. This is, essentially, a police investigation. The one who will be accused doesn't get to call witnesses at this point.

DonDiego does not understand that the Mueller investigation was not a criminal trial. Therefore, "innocent until proven guilty" didn't enter into it. The Mueller report was inconclusive. It did not find collusion; it also did not exonerate Trump. If the Mueller report had been a criminal trial, the finding of "not proved" would have been equivalent to "not guilty"--but it wasn't a trial. It would not have returned a verdict--it would have returned recommendations, as it did anyway, to a lesser degree.

British jurisprudence has a sounder way of expressing the results of a trial: "Guilty," "Not Guilty," or "Not Proved." In the US, a verdict of not guilty doesn't mean the defendant didn't do it; it could be that the prosecution was unable to prove its case "beyond reasonable doubt." See: OJ Simpson.

I note the deep hypocrisy of Republicans and Trump citing (incorrectly) the (nonexistent) law and saying it must be followed, while he and they routinely ignore subpeonas, and Trump ignores the Constitution. It's classic Trump--follow the rules only when it benefits you.

Kevin Lewis writes: "British jurisprudence has a sounder way of expressing the results of a trial: "Guilty," "Not Guilty," or "Not Proved." In the US, a verdict of not guilty doesn't mean the defendant didn't do it; it could be that the prosecution was unable to prove its case "beyond reasonable doubt." See: OJ Simpson."

DonDiego thought this to be an interesting distinction, . . . so he went about looking at the internets.

i. The third possible trial verdict is, in fact, found in Scottish jurisprudence, not British.  

ii. The legal implications of a not proven verdict are the same as with a not guilty verdict; the accused is acquitted and innocent in the eyes of the law.

iii. (In 2016) Holyrood's justice committee concluded that Scotland's not proven verdict was on "borrowed time" and may not serve any useful purpose.

iii (a) There is some preference for removing the "not guilty" verdict instead of removing the "not proven" verdict.

So it would seem the Scots are moving toward the two-verdict-system , removing the superfluous  third verdict, while Kevin Lewis calls for a superfluous verdict to be added to US jurisprudence.

Ref: BBC